[nfb-talk] audible walk signals (again)

John Heim john at johnheim.net
Sun Apr 24 21:51:16 UTC 2011 

What data shows that audible walk signals drown out cars putting blind 
people at risk?    And when did the NFB institute a studying audible walk 
signals? Can you document that? I specifically asked Mike Freeman about that 
and his response was that we didn't need studies.

Seriously, if you could provide a link to a study that showed audible walk 
signals put blind people at risk, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from 
ChairmanGordon Gund


>I just get so tired of the same damned unrelenting straw men brought up 
>time and again, anywhere he can wedge these things in, whether they make 
>sense or not.  He's not been back two weeks and already we're all 
>illogical, unethical, and he's back to the straw man about how we all want 
>blind people to beg for help from sighted people.
>
> If I have learned one thing from politics, it's that certain parties 
> always want to re-frame the argument so that either you agree with them, 
> or you are against something that nobody ever would be.  Either I am 
> right, or you support cruelty to kittens!  What do kittens have to do with 
> anything?
>
> So if you listen to John, if you oppose a particular modification to the 
> US currency, you want blind people to be helpless and dependent, despite 
> the fact that very few are helpless or dependent in this matter today, 
> unless it be by choice.  Money identifiers are now $100, and my cell phone 
> can do it for the huge investment of TWO BUCKS.  John and I basically 
> agree that electronic identifiers are not a suitable solution to the 
> problem, and yet I cannot support his baseless attacks (and incessant) 
> incendiary claims against the NFB on even this issue.  Despite the NFB's 
> involvement in making the currency accessible, John's blanket statement is 
> that we oppose doing this on every level, and in THREE YEARS (or longer, I 
> think) he has yet to accept a single person's claim to the contrary.
>
> If you oppose chirping signals, you want blind people to die crossing 
> streets.  An outright lie.  The NFB opposed these things because the data 
> showed that they drowned out cars resulting in more blind people at risk, 
> not less.  Moreover, as of eight or nine years ago, the NFB has been 
> actively developing a safe replacement for these squawking monsters, and 
> the documented position of the organization is that we support their 
> installation when they will benefit people.  John's blanket assertion is 
> that we oppose them universally.  Our own resolutions to the contrary are 
> not evidence, and nobody can prove otherwise to his satisfaction.
>
> If you oppose blanket mandates for descriptive video without any 
> consideration of what kind of descriptive video would be useful or in what 
> context, then you are a monster who wants blind people to be deprived, 
> uninformed, and miserable.  The fact that descriptive video doesn't 
> actually exist as any kind of standard like closed captioning does and 
> that it's just shoehorned haphazardly into SAP channels, that nobody has 
> actually determined what to describe or how, or that any effort to mandate 
> this now can only serve to prevent a universal and standardized solution 
> from emerging is irrelevant.  Again we have the blanket assertion that the 
> NFB opposes what is good and right, is evil for doing so, and not one 
> single argument to the contrary is ever afforded even a first thought, let 
> alone a second.
>
> I could go on, at length, but the fact remains that nobody has ever swayed 
> John Heim on a single issue, ever, in the history of his presence on this 
> list.  We are all just illogical, unethical, and he is brutalized and 
> attacked from all sides, asking Dave Andrews to sanction anyone who 
> bruises his poor, fragile ego.  He can dish it out, in spades, in the most 
> incendiary language possible, but he can't take his own medicine.
>
> And more importantly, he won't shut the hell up about any of it.  He just 
> continues to trash the NFB, and the good people of this list.  We have not 
> forgotten this, and it should be clear that John is immovable on pretty 
> much anything, and that includes a fundamental belief that the NFB is 
> harmful to the blind.  So then, what is he doing here?  And why is he 
> permitted to remain, spewing this crap day after day?
>
> Joseph
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 08:16:28PM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>Too bad that troll doesn't fall off the face of the earth!
>>
>>
>>Gloria Whipple
>>Corresponding Secretary
>>Inland Empire chapter
>>nfb of WA
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
>>Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 17:10
>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
>>ChairmanGordon Gund
>>
>>The troll returns to one of his favorite ACB-inspired arguments about
>>how evil the NFB is.  I say again, go away.
>>
>>Joseph
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 04:24:42PM -0500, John Heim wrote:
>>>Yet, the NFB would have us ask for help to identify our money.
>>>
>>>
>>>On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi Joseph,
>>>>
>>>>Well done! I like what you had to say.
>>>>
>>>>My prayers go out to you and I hope you get better and I hope you
>>>>are free
>>>>from cancer soon.
>>>>
>>>>All my best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>>nfb of WA
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: nfb-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfb-talk-
>>>>bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>>>>Behalf Of T. Joseph Carter
>>>>Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 19:01
>>>>To: NFB Talk Mailing List
>>>>Subject: Re: [nfb-talk] FW: {Disarmed} FW: A personal report from
>>>>ChairmanGordon Gund
>>>>
>>>>Gloria,
>>>>
>>>>I think what it boils down to is that language is a powerful thing.
>>>>The words a person uses are less important than the intent behind
>>>>them, but from a choice of certain words over others we can infer an
>>>>intent.  I have been battling cancer.  This implies something about
>>>>me and my relationship to cancer.  I have been living with it, and I
>>>>don't want to be.  In fact, I am fighting to make it gone, because
>>>>cancer is a horrible thing.
>>>>
>>>>Am I fighting blindness?  Do I suffer from blindness?  Am I forced to
>>>>use alternative techniques?  Well yes, I do suffer as a result of
>>>>blindness.  Not because of blindness itself per se, but because of
>>>>the reaction of others to it who are not blind (and a few who are,
>>>>sadly).
>>>>
>>>>The refusal to be pigeon-holed into this "sad existence" of
>>>>"suffering because of blindness" is precisely the kind of supposed
>>>>"unethical" behavior the NFB engages in by spreading our philosophy.
>>>>It is akin to those during the 60s arguing against the notion that
>>>>they were afflicted somehow with being black.  Blindness is a bad
>>>>thing only if you make it be so, and we refuse to make it so for
>>>>ourselves.  Moreover, we refuse to allow others to force us into that
>>>>role.
>>>>
>>>>Those who would disparage our efforts to do so are not our friends,
>>>>just as those who would have you look down upon a man of color
>>>>because his skin was darker than, say, mine is.  Is he somehow worse
>>>>of because of that?  Is he lessened as a man or as a person?  Does he
>>>>deserve something less, or for that matter anything more, than any
>>>>other person simply because of the color of his skin?  Most today
>>>>would say out of hand that he should have the same opportunities
>>>>anyone would have.  No more, but certainly no less!
>>>>
>>>>The blind deserve the same equality that our more sunburn-resistant
>>>>brothers demanded more than forty years ago.  In just one generation
>>>>we have gone from a person of color being denied the use of a
>>>>drinking fountain to electing him to the United States presidency.
>>>>If there remains racial inequality, it cannot be because of the color
>>>>of a person's skin anymore.  Some individuals may yet harbor such
>>>>attitudes (and I recently observed some of those people in a public
>>>>display, sadly), but society rejects such people as undesirable when
>>>>they are exposed.  (And believe me, we are exposing them all over
>>>>YouTube, since the local media won't even report it.)
>>>>
>>>>But what about the blind?  The same society who refuses to allow a
>>>>black man to be treated as a second class citizen openly condones it
>>>>when a blind man is treated likewise.  Disability is one of only two
>>>>acceptable areas of discrimination that remain in this country.  (The
>>>>other is so far removed from topical for this list that I won't
>>>>discuss it here, much to Dave's relief.)
>>>>
>>>>We cannot continue to meekly request that we be treated as first
>>>>class citizens.  It didn't work in the 1940s, and it hasn't worked
>>>>yet.  Only by refusing to be anything less will we finally achieve
>>>>that.  Unfortunately, that means getting a bit uppity over language
>>>>that paints us into a corner, as it were.  I'm not here to be pitied
>>>>or someone's inspiration.  I'm here because I've got a job to do, and
>>>>within the National Federation of the Blind, that job is to achieve
>>>>for myself and for all of us the basic rights of first class
>>>>citizenship afforded to anyone else in this country today, regardless
>>>>of their skin color, sexual orientation, and a whole host of other
>>>>things.
>>>>
>>>>I don't expect any more, but I also won't accept any less.
>>>>
>>>>Joseph
>>>>
>>>>On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 09:33:15AM -0700, Gloria Whipple wrote:
>>>>>James,
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks for explaining what I wanted to say about this subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am glad someone is on my side!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Gloria Whipple
>>>>>Corresponding Secretary
>>>>>Inland Empire chapter
>>>>>nfb of WA
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>>nfb-talk:
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40web
>>ba
>>>>nd.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>>for nfb-talk:
>>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.
>>net
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>nfb-talk:
>>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40
>>gmail.com
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/ladygloria%40webba
>>nd.com
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>nfb-talk mailing list
>>nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
>>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
>>nfb-talk:
>>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/carter.tjoseph%40gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfb-talk mailing list
> nfb-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfb-talk:
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfb-talk_nfbnet.org/john%40johnheim.net
>

More information about the nFB-Talk mailing list